Dismissed

K.Bharathi v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Madras HC29 Mar 2023WP/37458/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by various individuals and entities challenging orders related to sugarcane movement. Petitioners argued the proceedings were infructuous, leading the court to dispose of them without further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed as infructuous; no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Bharathi Vs the Tiruttani Cooperative — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009 and

¶7

W.P.M.P.Nos.44932 & 44933 of 2004 and M.P.Nos.1, 1, 1, 2, 2 & 3 of 2009

¶8

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004:

¶9

K.Bharathi ...Petitioner in W.P.No.37458/2004 K.Munirathinam Naidu ...Petitioner in W.P.No.37459/2004

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District, Rep.by its Administrator, Tiruvalangadu.

¶12

2.The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶13

3.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶14

..Respondents in

¶15

(W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459/2004)

¶16

1/9

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Article

¶19

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶20

Prayer in W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004 : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from interfering with the movement of the petitioner's sugarcane in any manner including to areas outside the State of Tamilnadu.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Balaji For Mr.P.Krishnan (in both W.Ps) For R1 : Mr.R.Gopinath (in both W.Ps) For R2 & R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader (in both W.Ps)

¶22

W.P.No.2659 of 2009:

¶23

1.B.Rangaraju 2.D.Mohanasundaram 3.T.Ramamani 4.B.Kumarasamy 5.T.Pannerselvam 6.T.Karunakaran 7.M.Gopu 8.S.Senkathir Selvan 9.K.Rajalakshmi ...Petitioners

¶24

Vs.

¶25

2/9

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶28

1.The Commissioner of Sugar/Cane Commissioner, Chennia – 600 005.

¶29

2.The Inspector of Cane / Assistant Director of Agriculture, Srinivasapuram, Maiyiladuthurai Town Extn., Nagapattinam District.

¶30

3.Nadippissai Pulavar K.R.Ramasamy Co-operative Sugar Mills, Through its Administrator, District Revenue Officer, Thalaignayar, Ezanthoppu, Nagapattinam District – 609 201. ..Respondents

¶31

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, c alling for the records relating to the order made in RC No.17679/cane2/2008 dated 18.09.2008 and the consequential notification dated 18.09.2008 issued by the 1^st respondent and the orders made in Na.Ka.No.12886/2008/Cane/K3 dated 06.01.2009 passed by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioners and quash the same and forbear the respondents their officials and subordinates from any manner interfering with petitioners right to cut and carry the unregistered sugarcane crops from their respective loans more particularly described in the writ petition schedule and transport the same for supply to other mills.

¶32

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶33

For R3 : Mr.R.Gopinath

¶34

3/9

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶37

W.P.No.3347 of 2009:

¶38

The Administrator, M.R.K.Sugar Mills Ltd., Sethiathope, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶39

...Petitioner

¶40

Vs.

¶41

1.The Chairman, Area/Limitation Committee, Office of the Secretary, Agricultural Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶42

2.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

¶43

3.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

¶44

4.Shree Ambika Sugars, Rep.by its Executive Director, 112, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.

¶45

..Respondents

¶46

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second and third respondents herein to monitor and restrict the movement of the sugar cane from Andimadam Firka and prevent movement of sugar cane from Andimadam Firka to the fourth respondent sugar mill in terms of the orders of the

¶47

4/9

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶50

Commissioner of Sugars dated 19.10.2007 made in Rc.No.14690/Cane.1/2007.

¶51

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gopinath For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Not ready in notice

¶52

W.P.No.6755 of 2009: 1.V.Rathina Chinnaiyan 2.V.Ravi 3.M.Rasool Beevi ...Petitioners

¶53

Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Sugar / Cane Commissioner, Chennai – 5. 2.The Inspector of Cane/Assistant Director of Agriculture, Srinivasapuram, Maiyiladuthurai Town Extn., Nagapattnam District. 3.Nadippissai Pulavar K.R.Ramasamy Co-operative Sugar Mills, Through its Administrator, District Revenue Officer, Thalaignayar, Ezanthoppu, Nagapattinam District – 609 201. ..Respondents

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

5/9

¶56

Prayer

¶57

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶58

Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, c alling for the records relating to the order made in RC.No.17679/cane2/2008 dated 18.09.2008 and the consequential notification dated 18.09.2008 issued by the 1^st respondent and the orders made in Na.Ka.No.12886/2008/Cane/K3 dated 06.01.2009 passed by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioners and quash the same and forbear the respondent their officials and subordinates from any manner interfering with petitioners right to cut and carry the unregistered sugarcane crops from their respective lands more particularly described in the writ petition schedule and transport the same for supply to other mills.

¶59

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Ethirajulu For R1 to R3 : Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader

¶60

COMMON ORDER

¶61

The respective learned counsel(s) appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made a submission that the writ petitions have become infructuous. Thus, no further adjudication is required.

¶62

Recording the above said submission of the learned counsel for the

¶63

petitioners, all the writ petitions stand dismissed as infructuous.

¶64

6/9

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶67

If at all any grievance exists for the petitioners, they are at liberty

¶68

to approach the competent authority. No costs. Consequently, connected

¶69

miscellaneous petitions are closed.

29.03.2023

Index : Yes

kak

1.The Administrator, Tiruttani Co-operative Sugar Mills, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvalangadu.

¶75

2.The Collector, Vellore District, Vellore.

¶76

3.The Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶77

4.The Commissioner of Sugar/Cane Commissioner, Chennai – 600 005.

¶78

5.The Inspector of Cane / Assistant Director of Agriculture, Srinivasapuram, Maiyiladuthurai Town Extn., Nagapattinam District.

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

7/9

¶81

6.The Administrator, Nadippissai Pulavar K.R.Ramasamy Co-operative Sugar Mills, District Revenue Officer, Thalaignayar, Ezanthoppu, Nagapattinam District – 609 201.

¶82

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶83

7.The Chairman, Area/Limitation Committee, Office of the Secretary, Agricultural Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶84

8.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.

¶85

9.The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

¶86

10.The Executive Director, Shree Ambika Sugars, Executive Director, 112, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai – 600 034.

¶87

8/9

¶88

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶89

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶90

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶91

kak

¶92

W.P.Nos.37458 & 37459 of 2004, 2659, 3347 & 6755 of 2009

¶93

29.03.2023

¶94

9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Bharathi v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Bharathi v. the Tiruttani Cooperative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Tamil Nadu fly Ash Bricks Vs Union of India

K.Venkat Rao, Vs The General Manager

R.Veeralakshmi Vs State , rep. by Secretary to Govt.

D.Sumathi Vs Arumugham

G.Masilamani Vs The District Collector

Bangalore T.a.Vaiyapuri Chettiar Vs The Commissioner